Do Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in Jesus?

The May 1, 2014 public edition of the Watchtower asks this question as the title of its third article. A secondary question in the table of contents asks, “If they do, why don’t they call themselves Jesus’ witnesses?” The second question is never really answered in the article, and oddly, it is not to be found in the printed version, only the on-line one.

The article is presented in the form of a dialogue between a publisher named Anthony and his return visit, Tim. Unfortunately, Tim is not terribly well prepared so as to test the inspired expression. (1 John 4:1) If he were, the conversation might have gone a little differently. It might’ve gone like this:

Tim: The other day, I was speaking with a coworker. I told him about the pamphlets you gave me and how interesting they are. But he said that I shouldn’t read them because Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe in Jesus. Is that true?

Anthony: Well, I’m glad you asked me. It’s good that you’re going straight to the source. After all what better way is there to find out what a person believes then to ask him yourself?

Tim: One would think so.

Anthony: The truth is that Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in Jesus very much. In fact, we believe that only by exercising faith in Jesus can we attain to salvation. Notice what John 3:16 says: “For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, so that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.”

Tim: If that’s the case, then why don’t you call yourself Jesus’ Witnesses?

Anthony: The fact is we imitate Jesus who made it his goal to make known the name of God. For instance at John 17:26 we read, “I have made your name known to them and will make it known, so that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in union with them.”

Tim: Are you saying that the Jews didn’t know God’s name?

Anthony: It seems that in those days people had stopped using the name of Jehovah out of superstition. It was considered blasphemous to use the name of Jehovah.

Tim: If that’s the case, why didn’t the Pharisees accuse Jesus of blasphemy because he used God’s name? They wouldn’t have missed out on an opportunity like that, would they have?

Anthony: I don’t really know about that. But it’s very clear that Jesus made his name known to them.

Tim: But if they already knew God’s name, he didn’t need to tell them what it was. You’re saying they did know his name but were afraid to use it, so surely they would have complain about Jesus breaking their tradition with regard to God’s name, right? But there’s nothing in the New Testament where they accuse him of that. So why do you believe that was the case.

Anthony: Well, it must be something like that, because the publications have taught us that and those brothers do a lot of research. Anyways, it doesn’t really matter. What’s important is that Jesus helped them to understand what God’s name represented. For example in Acts 2:21 we read, “Everyone who calls the name of Jehovah will be saved.”

Tim: That’s odd, in my Bible it says that “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” In the New Testament, when it uses Lord, isn’t it referring to Jesus?

Anthony: Yes for the most part, but in this case, it refers to Jehovah. You see, the writer is referring to a quote from the book of Joel.

Tim: Are you sure about that? In Joel’s time, they didn’t know about Jesus, so they would use Jehovah. Maybe the writer of Acts is just showing his readers that there is a new truth. Isn’t that what you Jehovah’s Witnesses call it. New truth or new light? ‘The light gets brighter’, and all that? Maybe this is just the light getting brighter in the New Testament.

Anthony: No, it’s not the light getting brighter. The writer said “Jehovah”, not Lord.

Tim: But how do you know that for sure?

Anthony: Will we’re pretty sure he did, but God’s name was removed from the Christian Greek Scriptures by superstitious copyists in the second and third centuries.

Tim: How do you know this?

Anthony: It has been explained to us in the Watchtower. Besides, does it make sense that Jesus wouldn’t use God’s name.

Tim: I don’t use my father’s name. Does that make sense?

Anthony: You’re just being difficult.

Tim: I’m just trying to reason this out. You told me that God’s name appears almost 7,000 times in the Old Testament, right? So if God could preserve his name in the Old Testament, why not in the New. Surely he’s capable of that.

Anthony: He left it to us to restore it, which we’ve done in almost 300 places in the New World Translation.

Tim: Based on what?

Anthony: The ancient manuscripts. You can see the references in the old NWT. They’re called J references.

Tim: I already looked those up. Those J references you talk about are to other translations. Not to original manuscripts.

Anthony: Are you sure. I don’t think so.

Tim: Look it up for yourself.

Anthony: I will.

Tim: I just don’t get it Anthony. I did a count and found seven different places in the book of Revelation where Christians as called witnesses of Jesus. I couldn’t find even one where Christians are called witnesses of Jehovah.

Anthony: That’s because we take our name from Isaiah 43:10.

Tim: Were there Christians in the time of Isaiah?

Anthony: No, course not. But the Israelites were Jehovah’s people and so are we.

Tim: Yes, but after Jesus came, didn’t things change? After all, doesn’t the name Christian refer to a follower of Christ? So if you follow him, aren’t you bearing witness about him?

Anthony: Of course we bear witness about him, but he bore witness about God’s name and so we do the same.

Tim: Is that what Jesus told you to do, preach the name of Jehovah? Did he command you to make known God’s name?

Anthony: Sure, he is Almighty God after all. Shouldn’t we emphasize him more than anyone else.

Tim: Can you show me that in Scripture? Where Jesus tells his followers to bear witness about God’s name?

Anthony: I’ll have to do some research and get back to you.

Tim: I mean no offense, but you’ve shown me in your visits that you know the Bible very well. Given that the name you’ve adopted is “Jehovah’s Witnesses”, I would think that the scriptures were Jesus is telling his followers to bear witness to the name of God would be at your fingertips.

Anthony: Like I said, I’ll have to do some research.

Tim: Could it be that what Jesus told his disciples to do was to make his name known? Could that be what Jehovah wanted. After all, Jesus said that “it is my Father that glorifies me”. Maybe we should be doing the same thing. (John 8:54)

Anthony: Oh, but we do. It’s just that we give more glory to God, as Jesus did.

Tim: But isn’t the way to give glory to God by promoting the name of Jesus? Isn’t that what the Christians in the first century did?

Anthony: No, they made known the name of Jehovah, just like Jesus did.

Tim: So how do you account for what it says in Acts 19:17?

Anthony: Let me look that up: “…This became known to all, both the Jews and the Greeks that dwelt in Eph′e·sus; and a fear fell upon them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus went on being magnified.” I see your point, but really, being called Jehovah’s Witnesses doesn’t mean we don’t magnify the name of Jesus. We do.

Tim: Okay, but you still haven’t answered the question of why we are not called Jesus’ Witnesses. Revelation 1:9 says that John was imprisoned for “bearing witness to Jesus”; and Revelation 17:6 talks about Christians being killed for being witnesses of Jesus; and Revelation 19:10 says that “bearing witness to Jesus inspires prophesying”. Most important of all, Jesus himself commanded us to be witnesses of him “to the most distant part of the earth.” Since you have this command, and since there is nothing like these verses telling you to bear witness to Jehovah, why don’t you call yourselves Jesus’ Witnesses?

Anthony: Jesus wasn’t telling us to call ourselves by that name. He was telling us to do the work of bearing witness. We chose the name Jehovah’s Witnesses because all other religions in Christendom have hidden and rejected God’s name.

Tim: So you are not called Jehovah’s Witnesses because God told you to, but because you wanted to stand out as different from the rest.

Anthony: Not exactly. We believe that God directed the faithful and discreet slave to take that name.

Tim: So God told you to call yourself by that name.

Anthony: He revealed that the name Jehovah’s Witnesses would be appropriate for true Christians to carry in the time of the end.

Tim: And this Slave fellow who leads you told you this?

Anthony: The faithful and discreet slave is a group of men we call the Governing Body. They are God’s appointed channel to direct us and reveal Bible truth to us. There are eight men making up the slave.

Tim: So it was these eight men who named you Jehovah’s Witnesses?

Anthony: No, we took on the name in 1931 when Judge Rutherford headed up the organization.

Tim: So was this Judge Rutherford the faithful slave back then?

Anthony: Effectively, yes. But now it’s a committee of men.

Tim: So one guy, speaking for God, gave you the name Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Anthony: Yes, but he was led by holy spirit, and the growth we’ve had since then proves that it was the right choice.

Tim: So you measure your success by growth. Is that in the Bible?

Anthony: No, we measure our success by the evidence of God’s spirit on the organization and if you were to come to the meetings, you would see the evidence in the love that is demonstrated by the brotherhood.

Tim: I may just do that. Anyway, thanks for coming around. I enjoy the magazines.

Hi Chris, I am going to take a look at that article in that magazine. I was turned off by yet another “apostate” warning in the article “Jehovah Knows Those Who Belong to Him” 10. How did the actions of apostates affect faithful ones in Paul’s day? 10 Timothy and other faithful ones were likely perturbed by the actions of apostates in their midst. Some Christians may have questioned why such individuals were allowed to remain in the congregation. Faithful ones might have wondered whether Jehovah really distinguished between their resolute loyalty to him and the hypocritical worship of apostates.—Acts… Read more »

I think that the whole organization has a negative tone. I am partaking for the memorial. And I told a friend that I disagreed with the GB position on the memorial partaking. He dumped me automatically. He said that he wanted everlasting life and couldn’t associate with someone who disagrees with the GB. I just responded with “My salvation comes through Jesus Christ. Not the Governing Body”. The CO came and bashed homosexuals which I struggle with those feelings. He said it’s disgusting and gross sin. He bashed us in so many examples. Never alcoholics and adulterers. The whole society… Read more »

Did y’all see that they have a new Watchtower article called “You will be witnesses of me” Those are Jesus’ Words. I am so happy because maybe its an article about a name change. IDK I haven’t read it. It just came out today on the JW website. It’s in the July 15, 2014 maganzine

I am shocked at this line , “We rejoice in this greatly, as it further confirms our faith and confidence that Jehovah God is supervising the affairs of the
WATCH TOWER BIBLE & TRACT SOCIETY, and is guiding Brother Rutherford, its president, in directing the Lord’s work throughout the whole earth….”

This brothers name is littered through this “resoulution”! I wonder if Iwould it have pricked my conscience or would I have pledged alleigiance to the WTBS and Rutherford along with the others…..

That resolution just reinforces in my mind that Jehovah and/or Jesus was not directing the organization then and he is not directing the organization now. Because Jehovah and/or Jesus would not and does not direct in falsehoods!! The fact is there is overwhelming evidence that they are not being directed by Jehovah and/or Jesus. They teach that they were appointed as God’s channel of communication (the “faithful and discreet slave”) starting in 1919. See the January 15th 2014 Watchtower: “Jesus then used his kingly authority to appoint a “faithful and discreet slave.” This slave would provide a regular supply of… Read more »

With the internet it is incredibly easy to cross-compare documents and records to build a more complete picture for ourselves. I don’t want to show disrespect to those living at that time, sitting in that audience and passing that resolution. To be fair to them, it isn’t like these resolutions are passed around prior to the convention so you have time to mull it over, or you even have a printed copy in front of you as you do in a business meeting. The resolutions are always fairly lengthy and if you even had the time or inclination to latch… Read more »

Meleti, Thank you for pointing out the appropriate forum for discussions and topics. I was unaware it was ready! Chris, If you (or others) are interested in transferring and continuing to discuss further in a new thread, I have opened a topic (to be approved by moderator) under General Chat called “What’s in a name?” menrov, Thank you for your insightful comments. I agree with you completely. The resolution you quoted personally makes my heart sink and I don’t recall ever reading it before. If I did, it makes me wonder how many times I have agreed to something like… Read more »

I highly disagree that the name is what’s making groups denominations. If Catholics switch their name to Christians and Mormons and Mormons do they same are they not still two different denominations? The names don’t make them denominations but the beliefs and actions do. Even if the Governing Body were to switch our name to Jesus Witnesses we wouldn’t change a thing. The name is not important. I see people on her quoting stuff about casting out demons in Jesus name. That’s what we would do. I’m not saying Jesus and Jehovah’s names are not important I’m saying the name… Read more »

This ones for chris. WOW chris you say that you have differences of opinion and the brothers are ok and respect it. Have i got that right. How long have you been a witness. Your congregation sounds good .keep it going brother. Keep on with your bible research. Read the. Christian scritures in context as much as you can. Keep praying for understanding. Well done. Kev c

I believe there is something fundamentally wrong with Christians having a name other than Christians. The moment we call ourselves something, we become a religious denomination. Russell expresses the reasons why this is a bad thing better than I could. You can find them here.

Rutherford ignored this wisdom and everything Russell said would happen did indeed happen.

“I believe there is something fundamentally wrong with Christians having a name other than Christians.”

It seems the most honest answer to me also. Russells comments prove very relevant with hindsight. I think the danger of entrusting your faith and salvation to another is very well described in Matt 23:15:

15 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!+ because you travel over sea and dry land to make one proselyte,* and when he becomes one, you make him a subject for Ge·hen′na* twice as much so as yourselves.

Meleti and others are quite right. The only genuine claim that a Christian can have to a name issued by God is “Christian” (Acts 11:26) If the WTS wanted to make a distinction and break away from the Bible Students then they could have called themselves Jehovah’s Witnesses or JF Rutherford’s Traveling Banana Salesmen for all intents and puposes The point is that Rutherford claimed it was by divine appointment! I can’t think of another ‘Christian’ group today apart from the Mormons who claim to have been given their name by a divine source. On that thought I am going… Read more »

Then don’t. Just remember Christ died so we can live. Not just be called Christians. A lot a groups only call themselves Christians but they have the trinity and hellfire. Did their name make then true? No. The name doesn’t matter

(Proverbs 22:1) . . .A name is to be chosen rather than abundant riches; favor is better than even silver and gold.

(Ecclesiastes 7:1) . . .A name is better than good oil, and the day of death than the day of one’s being born.

What I find incredible is the emphasis the organization has put on using the divine without living up to its character and truthfulness. We will be sadly mistaken if we think we can teach error alongside Jehovah’s character.

Any person wanting to get to know God is always referred by Him to His Son Jesus to learn, and it is only when Jesus decides that the person is ready for it, that He reveals the Father to him. Hence we are to preach Christ impaled, and teach people even the least of the commandments of the law, that through them they might get an accurate knowledge of their own sinfulness and see a need for Christ’s sacrifice, to set them right with the Father. 1 Cor 1:23; Mat 5:17-19; Ro 3:20 Only those anointed with the Holy Spirit… Read more »

“Only those anointed with the Holy Spirit have authority to act as God’s ambassadors, substituting for Christ here on earth, with authority to forgive sins and ability to reconcile people with God by means of Him.” We are not “substitutes” for Christ in this sense. (John 20:23) The anointed are not given authority to forgive sins in Jesus’ place (nor the apostles). All authority to forgive sins has been given to Jesus’ by the Father. (Matthew 9:6) We are representatives of Christ ( like the apostles) and proclaim the forgiveness of God to the world through our ministry ( preaching… Read more »

I am not taking sides in this discussion. However, I would like to point out that Ross quoted two scriptures that appear to support his point of view. To reply with a contrary viewpoint requires one to address those scriptures–specifically: Mat 18:18; Jo 20:23

Yes, the anointed will become sharers of God’s
immortal nature and sit with Christ on His throne
to judge the world and angels, but they obviously
are not co-mediators with Christ over the new
covenant, which is between them and the Father.

It is not for no reason that they are called holy ones,
although I do not see the WT anointed as those in
whose ‘mouth no falsehood was found,’ since they
teach that the parousia of Christ has already been
going on for a century now, which is clearly a lie,
and therefore does not make them fit the profile of
the 144000, according to Scripture.

Based on your comments in the past , it appears that you believe anointed will be equal to Christ because they share his nature. I have a feeling you believe that the anointed substitute for Christ as Co-mediators of the new covenant.

the forgiving of sins by the anointed has got to do with their being indwelled by Christ, having His mind on things, and thus being privy to what sort of sins they should forgive because they were already thus viewed by Christ Himself, and those for which they should not even try to intercede on behalf of their brothers as sins that incur death, which is clearly a priestly
function exercised by Christ through His anointed disciples here on earth as His substitutes.
Eph 3:17; 1 Cor 2:10,16; 1Jo 5:16,17; 2 Cor 5:20

Well perhaps after re-reading his comments it depends on what he means by “forgiving” sins. We all have the ability to forgive the sins and offenses of others- whether you are “anointed” or not. Jesus was speaking to his disciples about what the scope of their responsibilities would be in connection to the Christian congregation. I believe in context of Mat 18:18 is that Jesus was speaking about entrusting them the keys of the heaven at Matthew 16:19: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and… Read more »

The fact that there are so many scriptures in the NT that refer to Christians as Witnesses of Jesus and bearing Witness to Jesus, while Jehovah’s Witnesses focus very little on bearing witness to Jesus is very revealing of the fact that Jehovah’s Witnesses have their witnessing priorities wrong. Jehovah’s Witnesses, in trying to defend their position, would say that Jesus was a witness of Jehovah and Christians are to imitate Jesus and thus be witnesses of Jehovah too. This is a poor argument with an unacceptable implication. It is true that Christians are to imitate Jesus but does that… Read more »

Does it really matter what we call ourselves. It’s just a name. It doesn’t reflect everything we do. Jehovah is the most high over all the earth. Therefore I would love to be called Jehovah’s Witness. A rose by any other name…… Yes Jesus is his Son. But like I said it’s just a name.

Brothers, we have a better forum for this type of discussion. http://www.discussthetruth.com. Why not open a topic there? As I see it there is some misunderstanding about what each one of you really means when discussing the importance of the usage of God’s name. Are we saying that use of God’s name doesn’t matter, or are we saying that it doesn’t matter whether or not the name of our particular religious denomination includes God’s name? Two very different points, wouldn’t you agree? Both are valid questions, but the Discuss the Truth forum is the best place to address them. For… Read more »

“I can’t stand when people make a ridiculous claim to drive a point. Like call ourselves “Care Bears”. It wouldn’t happen so you’re not validating any point.” You may call me “people” if you wish. I will not proceed any further than this comment, unless you are interested in making some scriptural points, because it is gradually becoming argumentative and in the wrong forum, but I feel I must defend my against your assertion of “ridiculous claim”. I didn’t make any claims. It is called hyperbole when you you use an exaggerated example to drive home a point and it… Read more »

Ok so why not be called the chosen ones. The Bible does say “4 just as he chose us in union with him before the founding of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love” (Ephesians 1:4) there is is. We can be called chosen ones. I’ve said it and I will say it again. The name of what we call our group doesn’t matter. We are Christians. Look at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Just because they have the name Christ in it doesn’t make them Christians. So what makes you… Read more »

Let’s be clear, being a Christian is determined by behavior not by name. That is something we all agree. Also, one is a Christian as an individual not because of his/her membership to an organisation. I guess the discussion here is whether a name of an organisation makes its member a Christian. I guess we all agree that that is not the case. But the influence of the organisation on its members does have an impact to what extend one is developing Christian behavior and qualities and faith in / respect for Jesus Christ. Someone who is a Muslim will… Read more »

I think the name still doesn’t matter. But going along the lines of wage you just said if we take our focus mostly of Jehovah and preached Jesus and changed our name to Jesus’ Witnesses then we would be like most of Christendom. They worship him and make him God. Jehovah said “I am Jehovah. Beside me there is no other God.” So why would I want to be under a name of his Son who is lesser than he is. We witnesses for Jehovah mostly because He is the highest in all the earth. He will not give his… Read more »

“Quote all you want. But until there is a scripture that says we must be called Jesus Witnesses, the name of our group doesn’t matter.” Unfortunately you are totally ignoring the fact that I am not just talking about the use of the name, but the claim that is attached to using the name. Those are 2 different things, but I have said enough on that. I know what are driving at, but you seem to ignore the wider implication and to be honest it is an illogical conclusion. If the name and the usage of the name is completely… Read more »

I’m a little confused – How can the divine name of God be “just a name”? If you take a name, you should 1) have permission and 2) make sure that you do nothing to taint it. I would be engaged in a lot of reflection before taking it upon myself to bear Gods name. When I finally asked the question “where does the bible instruct Christians to build an organisation around Jehovahs name?” – I could not find the answer and I do not believe that an adequate answer is forthcoming. That alone gives me sufficient cause for concern.… Read more »

“I only disagree with the Memorial Partaking. But it seems to me that if you disagree with the current teaching of the Watchtower then go to the bible students” With all due respect you also disagree with the GB’s view on posting or viewing “Apostate” websites ….such as this one. Everyone is entitled to make whatever decisions their conscience allows them to make including staying a JW. The opinions expressed on this site are not the view of all. The freedom to express open disagreement with those who decide doctrine (GB) is a freedom that we do not currently have… Read more »

Chris- I do not consider this site “apostate” either. However you and I both know that the GB does . My overall point is that you stated that you only disagree with the GB ( who decides doctrine) regarding “Memorial Partaking” and that is not the case . You obviously also disagree with the GB’s view of “apostate” material because of your presence on this site. Apparently anyone else on this site who disagrees with the GB with say …..More than one doctrine, in your view they should take a hike. The fact is if the Elders in your congregation… Read more »

The others in the congregation know that I don’t have but I have issues with some of the material bit of condemning for it I guess that each congregation is different you some that are strict old by the book witnesses then you have us who if I disagree with something then they respected

Sorry. Was driving. I don’t consider this apostate. It’s truth. Charles Taze Russell even said even if truth were from the devil truth is truth. My elders know I research. They don’t question me for it. They know I have questions. They don’t care. Each is different

We are probably on this website for the same reasons that you have visited . We all have our own personal reasons why we stay or choose to leave . Are you suggesting that we all leave like you obviously have ?

I only disagree with the Memorial Partaking. But it seems to me that if you disagree with the current teaching od the Watchtower then go to the bible students. You are part of the new covenant and you can partake and run the race to be on of the 144, 000. While rejecting the trinity and the holidays. You can have the best of both worlds. Why stay. I stay because I agree with the majority of it. I expressed my concerns with the 1914 and my elder told me that it doesn’t matter is it Is 1914 o4 1878,… Read more »

I agree that one should do what he/she believes is best. If one believes that what is being taught by the organisation is correct, then by all means continue to support them. I know the expression, what’s in a name. Point is that in the bible, names do have a meaning. So, the name Jehovah witnesses does mean something, otherwise they would have continued with Bible Students. For the organisation, it surely did make a big difference to take up a new name. Will it save one? No, that I agree. The name itself will not condemn or save but… Read more »

Well going along with that reasoning, does anything matter? If using Jesus name is so unimportant, then how would you explain Matt 7:21? 21 “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but only the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will.+ 22 Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord,+ did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’+ 23 And then I will declare to them: ‘I never knew you! Get… Read more »

Still no proof. The name we call ourselves doesn’t matter. It’s not salvation in the name of the society. It’s our faith. Quote all you want. But until there is a scripture that says we must be called Jesus Witnesses, the name of our group doesn’t matter.

In Chris’ defense, I do not believe he is saying that names are not important. Rather, he is saying is that whatever label we attach to our organization has nothing to do with our individual salvation. I concur.

It still doesn’t matter no matter what scripture you quote. The name does not affect Salvation is what I am getting at. When we are Judged, is Jesus doing to say “You were called Jesus’ Witnesses and you were called Jehovah’s Witnesses so you go tp Paradise and you don’t.” Absolutely not. IT’S JUST A NAME. The bible does not say what Christians should be called. It was used in the bible. It’s just a name. No one’s salvation is lost or gained over it. Here’s my question for a lot of you. If you don believe in the FADS,… Read more »

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but based on my understanding of your comment, I respectfully disagree, simply because we do not just use the name. Our literature does not only very frequently and specifically state we are Jehovahs chosen people and Gods appointed channel of communication, these are central tenets. For such a claim, we should look for proof, which is what many are now trying to do.

I disagree. Even if we’re were called Jesus Witnesses it’s still just a name. It won’t change our activities. So disagree all you want but even if we change it we are the same group teaching the same thing. God won’t look at us with more favor and worthiness just because we are called by a different name.

On the face of it that is a fair comment, except the WTS has gone beyond what is written by claiming to be exclusively appointed by Jehovah and/or Jesus.
That is a remarkable and bold claim don’t you think other Chris?
Like many here I have tested this claim against what the scriptures say and found it to be false and misleading.

I agree with both Chris 1 and 2 🙂 We should want to be called by whatever God wants us to be called( if He has a name for His people at all). It appears that we were given this name (JW) by a divine revelation given to Rutherford. In all fairness many sects of Christendom feel the need to separate themselves( Protestants, Mormons, JW’s , Baptist , etc.) (1 Cor. 1:12) I am not sure , based on the scriptures , that the disciples of Christ ever took out a name for themselves. It appears that “Christian” and/or the… Read more »

“In a similar vein, Jesus’ role as a witness of Jehovah was and is to remain, without parallel. Jesus was the oldest and most intimate personal associate of Jehovah. Jesus’ witnessing about Jehovah wasn’t limited by a knowledge of the scriptures. Jesus spoke from personal first hand experience! Jesus was sent as Jehovah’s representative!” “Throughout this short conversation, for every time that I mentioned the Sons name, my sister would counter it with Jehovah in an almost frightening manner as though I were in some way dishonoring Jehovah God by speaking of His beloved Son” This morning during my Bible… Read more »

I forgot to mention the unacceptable implication of the argument that Christians are to be witnesses of Jehovah as Jesus was. The NT reveals that first century Christians were witnesses of Jesus, not Jehovah (primarily speaking). Thus according to their argument, one would have to conclude that 1st century Christians – including the writers of the NT – failed to imitate Christ in being witnesses of Jehovah.

Ok Kev, about Acts 15:14: When did Acts 15:14 start having fulfillment? Wasn’t it back in the first century when the remnant of Jews were joined by gentiles in true worship as Christians? The context of Acts 15:14 shows that the inspired writer was applying that prophecy to their time. Therefore, if Acts 15:14 meant that the Christians would be literally called by God’s name, then how is it they were not? How is it they were called instead, “The Way”, “Christians” and ‘Witnesses of Jesus’? It is therefore obvious that the statement ‘a people for his name’ does not… Read more »

Hey thanks anonymous for the reply by the wayi totally agree with your line of reasoning .there .its dead right what you said the fullfillnent is in the first century and followers of jesus have always been known as christians i raked that one up because if i had been antony thats one scripture i personally would have qouted as i used to beleive it justified the name jehovahs witnesses .I think its great when we can openly raise these objections and have them answered as you brothers and sisters have done there And im the type of person that… Read more »

A name in the Hebrew tongue meant far more than that of GrecoRoman. From a Jewish perspective a name represented the entire character and history of the one bearing it. Why the wise man said, “a name is better than good oil and the day of death better than one being born.” If we can understand this about Jehovah and Jesus, we wouldn’t be so hung up on which name goes where. Jesus became the “exact representation” of his Father and therefore could bear his Father’s name (and character) in the precise way his Father intended. Another way to look… Read more »

“Another way to look at it is Exodus 7:1. If Jehovah could make Moses God to Pharaoh, could He not make Jesus God to the entire world?”
Amen! As you probably already know I definitely agree with that line of reasoning.

I support this view. Also, I read one comment on this verse that said it could also mean People to his honor. Not necessarily that the people would be called by His name. The Gentiles were not a group of people in honor to Jehovah but now Jehovah would also have Gentiles honoring him.

I asked my sister why we avoid using Christ Jesus’ name when talking about the truth one day. I had, at the time been pointing out that Jesus had come along to show any who would better their lives; a way to do so. I spoke of the incredible love and patience that Jesus showed when he was speaking with those he preached to and how well he dealt with the personalities of his disciples. Throughout this short conversation, for every time that I mentioned the Sons name, my sister would counter it with Jehovah in an almost frightening manner… Read more »

That is the most funny thing I read in a long time. I never understood why they printed these little articles publicly. It’s one thing to train internal JW how to preach, and in that regard it could indeed be helpful. But to print it for the general public however.. It reads too much as propaganda.

Just before I close my laptop to go home: in the statement of the objective of the magazine, it says the Jehovah is (supreme) ruler of the universe. Not sure what is referred to a universe because the bible learns as that Satan is ruler, as also described in 1949 Watchtower:
The Scriptures are clear on the point that Satan is the invisible ruler of this present evil world. That is why he is also referred to as “the prince of this world”.

Coming back to the argument in the hypothetical conversation around the promotion of faith in Jesus. Here is what is currently printed as objective of the magazine: THIS MAGAZINE, The Watchtower, honors Jehovah God, the Ruler of the universe. It comforts people with the good news that God’s heavenly Kingdom will soon end all wickedness and transform the earth into a paradise. It promotes faith in Jesus Christ, who died so that we might gain everlasting life and who is now ruling as King of God’s Kingdom. This magazine has been published continuously since 1879 and is nonpolitical. It adheres… Read more »

OK, just read it. Indeed, not half as enjoyable.Nothing really new, same standard arguments that in fact do not represent how in formal worship in our meetings Jesus is “highlighted”. I like to compare it with the argument that the Catholic pastors use when being asked about all these statues and relics they use in worship and that the bible teaches not to use them. Their answer always is, we do not pray to them but we use them as a means to visualize our religion. In other words, people like to be able to touch something but of course… Read more »

menrov, Don’t you know how important it is to rely upon “imagination” “likeliness” “supposing” and “presuming” in this religion? It is an integral part of their language structure, a means employed to convey an idea or plant information that is not backed up in scripture and often misused in quoting from some authority. It is a very effective method for saying something and remaining distant from it at the same time, should the need arise. Outright statements are becoming a rarity these days….as I read it. They have to consider the times they have looked very silly in some court… Read more »